EDITH: WHEN THE STATE BECOMES THE SOURCE OF VULNERABILITY
A family in Belize is demanding answers nearly two years after police removed a non-speaking autistic woman from her mother’s care.
On December 13, 2024, an event in Belmopan, Belize, changed the circumstances of a family and raised serious questions about the exercise of police authority, procedural safeguards and the protection of a particularly vulnerable person. According to the family, Edith, a non-speaking autistic woman with significant support needs, was removed by police from the care of sister Kaila Nunez, who had been her caregiver since May 15, 2017. The family maintains that the removal took place without the appropriate court proceedings, social-work intervention or safeguards that should govern decisions affecting a person with Edith’s needs.
Nearly two years later, the family says Edith has not been returned to their care. They are demanding answers about the circumstances of her removal, the authority under which it occurred, her present welfare and the institutional decisions that have allowed the matter to remain unresolved. This is no longer simply a private family dispute. It raises questions of public accountability.
THE EXERCISE OF POLICE AUTHORITY
The family identifies December 13, 2024, as the date police removed Edith from her sister Kaila’s custody in Belmopan, the capital of Belize. They say the operation involved police personnel along with the former CEO of the Ministry of National Security and was undertaken without the appropriate judicial process. Those are serious allegations. If established, they would demand scrutiny of the legal authority relied upon, the decision-making process, the safeguards considered and the responsibilities of the officials involved.
At the time, Sharol Saldivar was serving as Chief Executive Officer responsible for National Security. The family has identified several public officials and institutions whose responsibilities or subsequent involvement they believe warrant examination, including Minister Dolores Balderamos, former Human Development CEO Adelyne Catsim, former Police Commissioner Chester Williams, current Police Commissioner Rosado, the Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions Sherlyn Vidal and Prime Minister John Briceño. The family says senior government and justice officials have been made aware of the matter. However, it has not received a resolution that addresses its central concerns.
The question then and now is whether the state followed the law, respected the rights of the person concerned and exercised its authority with appropriate oversight. Police powers are not unlimited. The involvement of law enforcement does not, by itself, establish that a removal was lawful or that the necessary protections were observed.
THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE
Edith’s circumstances make the questions particularly urgent. She is non-speaking and autistic, with significant support needs. Her family describes her as someone whose well-being depends substantially on familiar people, environments and routines. Any major disruption to those relationships and surroundings must be considered with attention to her individual circumstances.
Disability does not diminish a person’s legal rights, dignity or entitlement to protection. Nor should a person’s inability to communicate verbally make it easier for institutions to overlook their interests. Belize is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Its principles include respect for individual dignity, protection from abuse, equality before the law and the right to live within the community with appropriate support.
These obligations make the treatment and welfare of persons with disabilities a matter of public concern, not merely a question for families to resolve privately. The family’s concern is therefore twofold: the process by which Edith was removed and the conditions affecting her welfare since that removal.
A FAMILY WITH DEEP ROOTS IN BELIZE
The family’s appeal also carries a historical dimension. Edith’s father, Ruben Nunez, was a career public servant who also worked as a social worker. The family recalls his discovery and reporting of a bomb at the Paslow building in Belize, an act they regard as an example of civic responsibility and public service.
On the maternal side, the family identifies with Belize’s Garifuna heritage. Edith’s grandmother was a Garifuna woman whose family history includes public service and contributions to the country’s development. Her maternal grandmother, Lucille Melendre, is commemorated through a boulevard in Punta Gorda. As Belize approaches Garifuna Settlement Day on November 19, the family says it is particularly painful to celebrate heritage, community and national identity while an unresolved matter involving one of its most vulnerable members remains before the country’s institutions. Their argument is not that family history should place anyone above the law. It is that the law must protect everyone, including those who cannot easily advocate for themselves.
THE QUESTIONS BELIZE MUST ANSWER
The central questions are straightforward. What legal authority was relied upon to remove Edith from her mother’s care? Was a court order obtained? Were appropriate social services involved? What assessment was conducted of Edith’s individual needs and best interests? Which officials authorised, supervised or reviewed the action? What independent assessment has been made of her current welfare? And what effective process exists to address the family’s concerns?
These questions require documented answers, not political assurances or silence.
The family says it has pursued official channels and raised the matter with senior authorities. Its decision to speak publicly reflects its view that private efforts have not produced an adequate resolution. For Belize, the implications extend beyond one household. Public confidence depends on institutions demonstrating that police authority is exercised lawfully, that vulnerable people receive meaningful protection and that complaints involving state conduct receive independent and effective scrutiny.
A DEMAND FOR DIGNITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The family is now seeking international attention, including through the United Nations, to the circumstances surrounding Edith’s removal and the protection of her rights. International attention does not replace domestic legal remedies, nor does it establish that allegations have been proven. It can, however, draw attention to questions that demand transparent examination. The authorities should provide a clear account of the legal basis for the removal, the procedures followed, Edith’s present circumstances and the steps available to ensure an independent review.
Edith is not a political instrument, an administrative file or an inconvenience to be passed between institutions. She is a person whose dignity and rights must remain central to every decision affecting her. A state demonstrates its character not only through the promises it makes to its citizens, but through the protections it provides when those citizens are most vulnerable. Nearly two years after December 13, 2024, one family is still waiting for answers.
Comments